From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tonkin v. Lofthouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 17, 2006
34 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 1324 CA 06-01352.

November 17, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (John J. Elliott, A.J.), entered July 21, 2005 in a breach of contract action. The judgment, upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, awarded plaintiff the amount of $15,643.62.

Before: Present — Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is. unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on Supreme Court's participation in the cross-examination of defendant and his witnesses ( see Camperlengo v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 239 AD2d 150). In any event, the record establishes that "the actions of the trial court were, in the main, directed towards focusing the proceedings on the relevant issues and clarifying facts material to the case in order to expedite the trial . . . [and that] overall the conduct complained of was not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial" ( Sheinkerman v. 3111 Ocean Parkway Assoc., 259 AD2d 480, 480, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 93 NY2d 956).


Summaries of

Tonkin v. Lofthouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 17, 2006
34 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Tonkin v. Lofthouse

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD J. TONKIN, Respondent, v. RICK A. LOFTHOUSE, Appellant. (Appeal…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Nov 17, 2006

Citations

34 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8503
823 N.Y.S.2d 716

Citing Cases

Kalikow Family P'ship, LP v. Seidemann

Consequently, we find no basis to disturb the court's determination.We note that tenant did not preserve for…

Town of Southampton v. Ciuzio

Furthermore, under the circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ordering the…